Sherlock

After reading comments on IMDB for some some years now I'm beginning to think that there are an awful lot of self-styled film critics on the board that believe they'll be taken more seriously if they sneeringly disparage everything they see. True, it's easier to carve up a film than really critique it, but that ill serves the other board visitors who are mostly trying to get an impression of a movie to see if it's worth seeing.

This is far exaggerated with any Sherlock Holmes film, since they (including me) can be pretty picky and very purist in outlook. I don't mind straying a bit from The Canon, or even taking a severe liberty or two if the end product is enjoyable. I was perfectly prepared, of course, to dislike this made-for-TV movie and went in expecting very little. I was pleasantly surprised.I enjoyed it.

It took many liberties with The Canon, to be sure, but I enjoyed the several departures from established plotlines and character. It's hard to take new approaches to this genre, and I think this one worked well in the end.

I'd give it a good honest seven, or thereabouts, which is more than I'd give most of the critics on this Board. If you're a Holmes fan, watch this one. It's miles better than some of the sappy efforts we're used to.

I didn't know what to expect from this movie that appears to have gone straight to video. The front cover seems to suggest that Sherlock will be played by Vincent D'Onofrio (who actually plays Professor Moriaty). When I first realized James D'Arcy was playing Holmes I thought he was way too young. And then I realized that was the point. This is about Sherlock Holmes as he is just beginning to find himself. In many ways he has the same insecurities and vulnerabilities as many young men. When he finds himself arrested near the beginning of the movie and questioned down at the police station, my mind flashed to a similar scene with James Dean in "Rebel Without a Cause". This is Holmes pre-pipe (he smokes cigarettes), pre-deerstalker cap (he doesn't generally wear a hat) and pre-Watson (he meets him during the course of the story and at first they don't get along). The movie also succeeds in making Victorian London seem very modern indeed (with crime and vice abounding)--which of course it was for those who actually lived in it.

For those who only like their Holmes to be of a more traditional variety, they will probably be turned off by some of the above elements as well as the modern soundtrack; however, the performances of D'Arcy and Roger Morlidge as Dr. Watson won me over. I'm a fan of Sherlock Holmes stories and I found this movie fresh and unexpectedly entertaining.

This movie is not faithful to Conan-Doyle's characters. Mycroft is a disabled recluse instead of a strong-willed, mover-and-shaker in the government. Dr. Watson is a mortician instead of a physician. Sherlock is a drunken womanizer (I suspect that if a person were to really drink all that he did in one evening, that person would end up in the hospital ... or the morgue). Vincent D'Nofrio's performance of Dr. Moriarty comes across as stilted and silly, not at all the brilliant and witty character we are used to seeing; although, I suspect that may be due more to the script than to the acting.

That said, I tried to view the movie on its own merits rather than comparing it to the original stories and other depictions of Sherlock, and this movie still has value as entertainment. The canes doubling as swords and one-shot guns was clever. The sword fights were interesting. Dr. Moriarty as the inventor of a new drug was ingenious.

It wasn't what I'd hoped for, but I'm still glad that I watched it.

Isn't Sherlock entitled to a "Flaming Youth"?? I was, perhaps you as well.

To compare every Sherlock with the very mature Jeremy Brett version is unfair and constricts the Holmes timeline.

The expectation that he will always be mature is fantasy.

One stumbles (in youth) and if lucky, finds their footing. A.C. Doyle only portrayed a character that had ( with great flaws) found his footing. OK but what about his youth???

So,forgive some of the weaknesses of this outing. Clearly D'Arcy does a fine job of it; better than some of the other cast. Better than many that have played S.H.

It results in a respectable if not glowing presentation.

I'd say worth watching, flaws and all.

I liked the movie. I thought all the main characters did a really good job.

But I also have a very bad taste in movies. I think the Richard Grant thing was a bit unnecessary. The idea of bringing a past into it was interesting, but not really developed as much as it could have been. I never fully understood why they brought him in to the story and to be honest, even as a Richard Grant fan, I didn't care much about the character. He could have been brought a bit more into the story. But D'arcy was great. So was the guy who played Watson. Still, the way they left it off, there is room for sequels. So unless they bring Grant back into the story later, I don't know. I think the scene and he story were well done, but just not as necessary as everything else.